Judge Not?

Posted on May 9, 2012 by

Judge Not?

Many times I have been told that “You can’t judge others” or “Jesus said not to judge” but that is only a smoke screen to try to conceal the behavior of those “claiming” to be Christians but in reality, the Church has judged them as “outside” Christianity.

Let’s first see the scripture that these would rest on. The passage starts with Matthew 7:1 and truly Jesus saId the words “judge not” but he didn’t stop there.

In King James the whole thought reads as follows: Matthew 7 King James Version (KJV)

1 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?

5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.

When the entire thought is read we see that it isn’t a direct command to “never judge” but rather a caution about hypocrisy in judging. The precaution is in verse two “For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged” which is much different.

Usually we hear the person who is claiming to be Christian yet not holding to true Christian teaching hiding behind the first two words of verse one. The problem that this person has is that they cannot properly understand the Holy Scriptures.

Look at the instructions of Saint Paul to the Church in Corinth:

1 Corinthians 5
King James Version (KJV)

1 It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father’s wife.

2 And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you.

3 For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed,

4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ,

5 To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

6 Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?

7 Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:

8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.

9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators:

10 Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world.

11 But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolator, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.

12 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?

13 But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.

It is clear that Paul is instructing the Church to judge “those within” and leave those outside for God to judge.

Is there a conflict between the Apostle Paul and our Lord Jesus with regard to judgment? The reality is “No” because Jesus was not giving a command, as many would claim, “Do Not Judge” but rather Jesus was cautioning us to be consistent. Judgment of others by a standard requires that the follower of Jesus submit to the same judgment.

The Church, from the beginning, has always condemned abortion as murder. The earliest documents of the Church state such even as early as the Didache (the teaching of the twelve) from 65 A.D. does this. For someone that claims to be part of the Church, someone that claims to be a Christian to contradict this foundational teaching puts that person in the same immoral position as the man in Corinth who was in a relationship with his stepmother. The Apostle Paul told the Church to put him out of the congregation and deliver him over to Satan so that he might be saved ultimately.

Recently a prominent Christian, Franklin Graham said that Barrak Obama was not a Christian as obama claims to be. Many liberals wanted to say that Graham was unable to make such a judgment. The scriptures however, show us that he CAN and that we should always make such a distinction.

So regardless of your desire to hide within the Church, if you are immoral, are a thief, murderer, or other person that practices such sins as have been identified by the Church, those within the Church can and should judge you for your behavior. They are not disobeying Jesus since they are submitting them self to the same judgment.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Democrat Plan for 2012

Posted on July 3, 2011 by

The mob mentality of “Group Identity Politics” practiced by the Democrat party has started to form and show us how the 2012 campaign will proceed.

The obama campaign has no success to point to. He has no record that he can run on and they won’t try. The promises made concerning the spending binge he’s been on, the failure of the “Stimulus” package, the unemployment rate, the large number of Americans on food stamps, the inability of massive federal spending to solve any problems all show his failure.

Leadership is NOT something he can point to. The recent attempt to get the Congress together on a deal that will increase the National Debt Limit shows that no one is following HIM. After all, if no one is following, you aren’t LEADING. So he’s a failure as a leader and can’t claim THAT in a campaign.

He promised all his Left Wing Radicals that he would withdraw all troops in 16 months after taking office and they are pretty upset that he hasn’t done that. Now that he’s started some kind of withdrawal of troops, even what he HAS done isn’t enough for the Leftist Mob.

So the plan the Democrat Party has is to attack any possible contender and try to diminish them in voters’ perceptions. Whatever candidates are in the field, the first step is to declare that NONE are REALLY able to be elected. How would the Democrat party know SO much about being able to win and SO ignorant of success and a record? If the Democrats WANT a specific candidate then that should be the sign to Republicans NOT to vote for them.

The mob mentality, clearly described in the new book by Ann Coulter “Demonic” will simply attack, besmirch, do everything they can to destroy any Republican candidate’s character. If that fails, and with some it will, they have another step, try to tie the new Republican candidate to any older Republican policies.

The cry will be a fear tactic, after all fear kept them in power in Congress for 4 decades. They will try to tell us that the Republicans cannot govern, that they want to kick the poor out of the hospitals, they want to throw old ladies off the cliff, we heard it before.

The problem is that Democrats use emotional statements, bumper sticker slogans, and wild herd emotions to stampede the mob. The mob is what they have and stampedes are all they can use. It’s impossible to reason with an emotional mob. The best that anyone can hope for is one person at a time reason, logic and truth must be expressed. When someone is trying to stir up emotions and fear, only resisting with reason and calm will win out.

Posted in Politics, Self-Defense, Tyranny | 1 Comment

You Are What You Hate

Posted on June 9, 2011 by

Many times the political world connects with philosophy in unexpected ways. The most common of these connections is that of “Religion”.

Recently the governor of Texas, Rick Perry, came out in support of a prayer meeting and conference to be held by a Christian group, calling any and all Christian groups, sects, and denominations to Houston to pray for the country. Because Governor Perry believes and stated that only Jesus could heal the nation, the atheists claimed he was acting as a theocratic ruler.

To the atheist, anyone who has any reference to religion is “imposing their religion” on others. The atheist claims he has NO religion, but that is not only false, it is a result of specifically manipulating language over decades to claim such as true.

Until the 1960s secular humanism was recognized by the Supreme Court as a religion. That made secular humanists vulnerable to be excluded from the public education system, the very target of their religious passion. When Christians began targeting secular humanism legally the humanist cause began redefining “religion” to make it possible to later argue that humanism was not a religion.

The humanists were able to make such a redefinition complete because they were in prominent and controlling positions in academia. They began subtle insertions of items in the definitions accepted by academia (surprise) such as belief in a supernatural being as a necessity to be a “religion” thus disqualifying secular humanism from that definition.

To be completely accurate about religion, the belief in a supernatural being is not exactly needed. I have found that acceptance of any text, philosophy, opinion, or discipline (such as science) as the supreme word is similar to a supreme being. Why is this so difficult to understand for the atheist? That reason is simple.

Atheism, the belief that no supreme being exists, the belief that there is no deity, claims that excludes atheists from being religious and therefore, to impose THEIR belief is somehow different than any other belief system.

I found the following definition on Reference.com to start from:
Religion:
1. a system of thought, feeling, and action that is shared by a group
2. that gives the members an object of devotion
3. a code of behavior by which individuals may judge the personal and social consequences of their actions
4. a frame of reference by which individuals may relate to their group and their universe.

If we consider that atheists rarely are alone, they congregate in groups just like other people, perhaps that is simply human. People like to congregate and socialize, so the fact that this definition recognizes the group shared values is not strange.

The object of devotion is difficult to understand for the atheist unless an examination of the belief system openly is made. To the atheist, he is the final arbiter of truth. He is the authority, unless he follows someone who he decides “explains it better” which seems no different than following a preacher. To the devoted atheist the only time you are correct is if you agree with him. If he agrees with you then it diminishes his arrogance so HE must be the one to be the authority. So the object of devotion for the atheist is his own ego in the clearest terms.

Since the atheist is the standard of his own truth, and he is his own object of devotion, his actions are right in his own eyes. His code of behavior is organized by what HE holds dear, if he is a law-abiding citizen, it would be law. If he is part of a community, then he is likely to share a moral and ethical code with the community. This personal code, while it may be shared with others, as friends and colleagues usually do, is solely judged as his own and reinforces the singular idea that he is the ultimate authority.

Often, the frame of reference that the atheist uses to relate to his group, other atheists, or the universe is cloaked in “science”. He often extols the virtue of his own critical thinking and analysis and since he is his own standard of reference his logic is flawless in his own eyes.

So as we see, the atheist and especially the “secular humanist” really are exactly what they “hate”. They crusade against the “imposition” of another’s beliefs on them while they work strongly to impose their own belief system on others.

So look at it this way, Mr. Atheist, you are what you hate and it is very clear to the rest of us, even if you are unwilling or incapable of seeing it.

As for me, when I am presented with a statement that I judge as untrue philosophically, I will state what I know to be true and go on. I will state truth from my perspective, my background, my religious beliefs and then choose not to get distracted in endless debates over these things. It’s not that it is trivial, it is more that someone who does not have a frame of reference that is common, either has already rejected the truth as I know it, or wants to engage in endless debate. The wasted energy and effort can better be assigned elsewhere.

Posted in Philosophy | 1 Comment

Tyranny In America

Posted on May 27, 2011 by

Tyranny In America

Most people laugh at me when I point out the tyranny imposed on America today. They tell me I’m seeing things, that I just can’t deal with a black president, that I hate democrats. None of those accusations are true.

Let’s look at facts.

There was an oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, used as an excuse to halt all drilling permits. Even when a Court told obama that it was unlawful, he continued that with impunity. Thumbing his nose at the Court, and then when the Administration was found in contempt, they issued a few permits that were, all but one, re-issued permits.

The refineries in Texas, working fine with a variance from the EPA that had been in effect for 16 years, suddenly were forced to shut down. That was half of the refineries in Texas that were doing business and were not going to be required to retool until they needed to be shutdown due to business requirements. So the refining capacity of the companies were cut drastically at a time when the businesses in America were already struggling. Gasoline and diesel fuel prices began rising, not surprising since administration officials expressed the desire for gas prices to get up to $4 or $5 per gallon.

The TSA began ignoring the fourth amendment rights of people and began aggressively patting down passengers. Most people subjected to it were complaining that it was more like molestation. When the Texas legislature was due to pass a law making it a felony to subject citizens to such an invasion, the TSA notified the airlines they were withdrawing their services and the US Attorney threatened a “No Fly Zone” over Texas. The Texas state senate backed down in the face of the threats and angered the people greatly. I’m sure that story hasn’t ended yet.

When disasters started adding up across the country, declarations by the administration were common EXCEPT when thousands of acres of Texas had burned. These declarations make it possible for people and businesses to get low-interest loans and such for rebuilding. Texas, however, has resisted the tyranny of obama so THEY are going to PAY for their insolence.

When a small dairy farmer in Pennsylvania was selling his raw milk to private clients who wanted it, the Federal government swung into action, hell-bent to destroy anyone that defied their tyrannical actions.

When a family, who had used a rabbit farming enterprise to teach their child about responsibility, was notified that they needed a license to sell rabbits to a pet shop, and that an application would be sent were surprised when administration officials told them that “we’re going to make an example of you” and now face a fine of over $90,000.

There are more examples of this tyranny. Many states have passed medical marijuana laws, finding themselves on the wrong end of federal tyranny.

Then there are the states that have passed firearms freedom acts that exempt guns, ammunition and accessories manufactured in their state, and never shipped out of state, from federal regulators. The retailers have been threatened by the feds with loss of their licenses.

The Founders knew that this could happen, and prepared for such by teaching us the doctrine of State Nullification. The STATES must nullify tyranny imposed by the federal government and when the feds try to impose control, the states must interpose the state government between the federal government and the citizens.

This historical and proper application of Nullification and Interposition has been exhaustively explained by Dr. Tom Woods in his book, “Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century” and everyone should read it.

Nullify Now conventions are happening all over the country and should attended by all people that are able.

Unless we all learn and resist the tyranny then the “Land of the free and the home of the brave” will descend into a country with only the rights that the National Government ALLOWS the people to have.

Posted in Politics, Tyranny | Leave a comment

If They Can’t Win the Argument, They Attack

Posted on May 20, 2011 by

When debating and arguing with Social Liberals you must be on your guard. There’s always a time that they cannot reason there way through your logic.

Why?

Because the social liberal doesn’t argue from a strong position of logic. They do not have a basis of reason because the social liberal argues from an emotional position. There is no reason and logic to support the social liberal position because there’s nothing to base reason on.

To the conservative, the basis for the government and therefore, politics, is the US Constitution. That isn’t a fluid or emotional foundation, it is clearly a written and solid foundation. The Constitution doesn’t “adapt” based on the emotion of the day. It doesn’t tell you what you WANT it to say, it gives guidelines and limits on the federal government.

It isn’t that the conservative “hates” the government, ad hominem attack, he doesn’t hate the “government” he simply knows that, as the founders intended, government has limits.

The government is not an enemy by itself, only when it isn’t kept within limits. The powers are limited by the written agreement between the states, the US Constitution.

I can hear the social liberal crying out, “the Constitution can change” and that statement alone is true as far as it goes. To the social liberal the Constitution can be changed at the whim of the bare majority of the society. That’s not true now nor has it ever been true.

The US Constitution requires that if society changes, the Constitution can be changed but there’s a specific way to change it to adapt to society.

Article 5 – Amendment

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

The only way for the Constitution to change is by amendment. It cannot change by people ignoring it. The Courts cannot change it. The Executive Branch cannot simply declare that something is “Constitutional” because the President wants it that way.

Now we have a group of social liberals that use only emotions to declare what’s Constitutional. If there is disagreement from the conservative, they will attack. They call the conservative “racist” or they look for some other emotional attack. Like the old question, “Do you still beat your wife?” The stigma is what they are seeking. Attack your opponent’s character if you cannot reason through his argument.

Then there is the attack of, “What about the LAST president’s actions?” That is intended to divert attention from today’s issue. It is as invalid as the claim of racism but the social liberal thinks it is valid because often the conservative doesn’t respond correctly. The appropriate response is simple, “The past administration isn’t at issue now.”

Why can’t the past administration BE the issue? Also a simply answered question is usually the social liberal’s follow-up question.

The United States has a change that is voted on every two years. The House of Representatives must be elected every two years and now one third of the Senate also must be elected every two years. With the President being elected every four years and his service limited to eight years, the control of the government changes dramatically every two years.

We are not some third world, banana republic that has a coup and then puts the old president on trial so they can be executed. No, we are a civilized nation that changes our government in a civilized manner. We are a nation of laws, and when we find the laws not being followed by the government we have, we change the government.

So when the social liberal asks me, “What about Bush? What about HIS actions?” The answer, once again is simple, “The majority didn’t like his actions and he was replaced.” There isn’t a recourse after that because we are the United States of America, not some mob-ruled group of savages that can’t get what they want so they kill or imprison the leaders.

So the social liberal is stuck, unable to reason past the arguments and requiring the current administration to take responsibility for running the government. That makes the current administration responsible for the economy and the unconstitutional actions and the tyranny imposed on the people. Since that causes the social liberal to accept the responsibility and assign it to the administration that is doing what he wants it to do, he searches for any way to attack the conservative.

Enter the “Race Card” and the ad hominem attack. Attack the character of the conservative. Call him a racist and make him defend himself. A charge that as we have advanced as a nation has become so bad that we don’t even want to be called a racist. It isn’t a common attitude, but the social liberal wants to use the charge because he cannot reason through the argument.

Without THAT charge, the next thing is to demand accountability for any prior administration from the conservative. This is absurd and even when made most see that, except the social liberal.

It doesn’t matter what you were saying or doing during the last administration, you are active TODAY. It doesn’t matter if you supported the last administration and now see some actions that are clearly wrong, you are here, actively participating TODAY. You might have had an awakening because before you didn’t recognize it. You might have had an awakening because you finally took the time to read and study the Constitution. Whatever the reason you can stand proudly and say, “I’m here now.”

So, during the Bush administration the social liberal didn’t like the war in Iraq, or Afghanistan but NOW, since “his guy” is in charge he stays silent. The war has not changed, it is still the USA trying to impose its will on another country, but it’s now being done by a social liberal.

So if the social liberal cannot win the argument, he can resort to ad hominem attacks or he can be an adult and reason it out. What do you plan, oh social liberal? Do you think that you can admit when, even though your guy is running things, he’s doing the same things that the last guy did?

Today, obama is continuing policies that were put into place by Bush. The policies that are working to get through the War on Terrorism, rendition (started by Clinton) and secret prisons run by the CIA, and occupying armies in countries that are not a threat to the USA, and the Patriot Act.

The policies that are clearly obama policies don’t do what obama claims. They DO accomplish what he wants, no oil drilling, refineries not operating creating $4-5 gasoline. Stimulus spending by the government is creating massive national debt, but the unemployment level isn’t changing because the debt is stifling business. The obamacare law is more massive spending that has not and will not make it possible to provide health care for all citizens.

The worst thing the social liberal must come to grips with is the fact that companies hire as a result of business needs, not because the government declares it. They cannot seem to understand that jobs are created to provide the business with more productivity, not to give workers something to do. Artificially creating price or wage controls make business demand more from workers, not creating jobs.

Maybe some day the social liberal will realize that returning to the principles that founded this nation and adherence to the Constitution is the only way to sustain this nation, but maybe not because that would make him a conservative.

Posted in Philosophy, Politics | Leave a comment

Muddy Waters

Posted on May 12, 2011 by

In case you face it, the libtard statement “There were six other presidents with foreign parents before obama” realize it is just trying to muddy the waters.

The first three:
Andrew Jackson
Born: Mar 15, 1757

Thomas Jefferson
Born: April 13, 1743

James Buchanan
Born: April 23, 1791

Born before the Constitution so they’re included in Article II.

Number 4 was Chester A. Arthur born 1829 and if I’m not mistaken, the only Naturalization Act that applied was the one of 1790 (because 1798 repealed 1795 and was itself repealed in 1802) so his father was conferred citizenship by living here more than 2 years. This is a guess simply because no data is available to me to confirm this hypothesis.

Number 5 was Woodrow Wilson, born in 1856 to two people who were confederates and the whole family would have been re-Patriated after the Civil War.

Leaving Herbert Hoover, born in 1874 and his mother immigrated to marry his father. No records exist for her except references to her existence but they were Quakers and both died leaving him an orphan by age 9.

None of these facts matter to the issue of obama’s status. The social liberal wants to muddy the difference between “citizen” and “natural born citizen”. The difference to most people is clear.

Anyone born in the USA or its territories is currently conferred US citizenship as a birthright. That includes the child born to any illegal alien inside the US. The only child born in the US that is denied such birthright citizenship is the child of diplomats because the diplomat is not subject to US law therefore the child is not conferred citizenship.

The natural born citizen is a child born of two citizen parents. The parents don’t have to both be born in the USA but they both must be citizens of the United States.

So the same thing I have said for the past few years is still true. WHERE obama was born is irrelevant because by his own admission, his father was a foreign national and that makes him a dual national. That divides his loyalty and therefore, his actions so far have done nothing but confirm my claim. He is being destructive to the country and seems to desire the diminished standing in the world that he is causing.

Posted in Politics | Leave a comment

Ignorance is Bliss

Posted on May 7, 2011 by

When someone makes a statement of political importance there’s always a level of uncertainty depending on their source. Often someone will take a single news article as a source, and depending on the agenda of the writer or the editor, that article may simply leave out something. Usually what gets left out is the fact that they wrote to inflame rather than to inform their readers.

Recently there was a story on the news posted by someone on facebook, clearly inflammatory. The slug line? Congress tries to redefine rape.

The story was about HR3 currently in the legislative process in Congress otherwise known as the sausage mill. I read the article, saw how inflamed it could make anyone who is female or anyone that is proabortion.

I then did what many refuse to do, especially when they are the target audience for the inflammatory article, I went to the Thomas Pages, the Congressional web site where the text of a bill gets printed. Each time it is amended or changed during hearings, committees and such the text is accurately recorded so anyone can read it.

Now if you have read any of my material then you know that my default on any federal spending is the limit of the Constitution. That said I will give you a summary of what I found reading the bill, you can always go to the same place and read the bill for yourself.

What I found was that it is intended to ban all federal funds from paying for abortion. While most people think that is already the law, it was surreptitiously removed during the passage of obamacare last year. The NEWS at the time denied that but as Nancy Pelosi said, we have to pass it so you can find out what’s in it. Well over the past year we have found what REALLY was in the obamacare plan and federal payment for abortion was provided in that law.

Now Congress is attempting to correct that. The Social Liberals are furious because they have been working for decades to get “abortion-on-demand” at any place in any pregnancy and paid for by tax payers the law. They are very close.

The facts, summarized are that HR3 bans federal funds from paying for abortion. It also bans federal tax deductions as health care costs for elective abortions. It also bans federal tax deductions under “cafeteria plan insurance plans” from paying for insurance plans that provide elective abortions. It specifically exempts from all of these funding prohibitions for abortions that save the mother’s life or results of rape or incest.

Those facts are clear from the text of the bill and anyone can read the text online here:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c112:3:./temp/~c1124Abcne::

It is so easy to believe writers, even me, but most Americans are just too lazy to read. Why? Plausible deniability!

People don’t want to do their own homework, they want to trust the leaders of their country and in the party they support. That is the reason I wrote the article “Party Loyalist” and why we cannot be party loyalists. Politicians, by and large, are seeking power to control the population. Taxes are one of those controls, regulations are another.

So what will You do? Are you going to learn and read? Are you going to study and look for the truth or just believe someone that you previously thought were worthy of your trust?

Debate, discuss, read and learn or remain ignorant. It’s your choice. I like to debate and discuss, many do. Comments are welcome to this blog as long as they stay civil.

Posted in Philosophy, Politics | Leave a comment